Jump to content

Do you happen to have any ideas?


Destranix

Recommended Posts

When thinking about having some kind of deepest romantic relationship, like doing anythink, being completely controlable by someone else, but also completely happy, I'm always getting to the conclusion, that this (and also other states of infinite luck within an finite system) should be a desireable state, since it promises infinite luck, but on the other hand something within me completely dislikes it, something deep within my stomach.

 

The thing is, that I cannot get a full understanding of what exactly causes this feeling of refusal. It seems like especially the point of staying in a finite system forever makes me feel thatlike.

 

At the moment the most plausible reason for this seems to by my curiosity or my urge to be something special, but those two usuale feel somehow different.

 

Anyone else of you got similiar thoughts and/or feelings and/or some more ideas about it?

 

(Also it might be interesting to know, if this somehow is connected or even identical to some sort of aromantic)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Tourmaline

by "doing anything" i assume you mean sexy things? as far as the historic/traditional western definition of romance goes it might be all sex and mind-games (the control piece you mentioned) but that isn't necessarily the only possible form of romance. to me personally, my ideal romance is somewhat similar to my ideal friendship: an unconditional love and support with somebody that is both amazing and fascinating and also somehow interested in me as a person. the "being someone special" part feels like the affirmation of worth and emotional support that really ought to be in any real friendship but romance that i have had before (when it first starts, before sex becomes an issue) feels like amazement that such a wonderful being exists in the world and a desire to spend as much time with them as possible. i'm not sure if this really exists in long-term asexual practice but people seem to claim it does? anyway it's the willingness to try and the clear and direct communication necessary to make it work. that's in theory anyhow. zero successful relationships but never tried a ace relationship per se. i've had some wonderful, passionate and deep non-romantic friendships with allosexual girls that involved a lot of asexy alone time and long conversations into the night but the girls seem to basically disappear when they find a sex partner. all in all you've got to love yourself and if anyone else loves you well that's bonus i guess. if i ever have a romantic relationship in the future it's either with another ace or it's just not gonna happen for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Black Tourmaline said:

by "doing anything" i assume you mean sexy things?

No, I guess I meant "nothing specific". Just "anything".

2 minutes ago, Black Tourmaline said:

an unconditional love and support with somebody that is both amazing and fascinating and also somehow interested in me as a person

That, if it's just some kind of "finite state", would not be enough for me. That's what my question is aiming at.

4 minutes ago, Black Tourmaline said:

being someone special" part feels like the affirmation of worth and emotional support that really ought to be in any real friendship but romance that i have had before

What I mean is somehow more. Not just Feeling special, but thinking you are.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Black Tourmaline
32 minutes ago, Destranix said:

What I mean is somehow more

okay i'm pretty sure i don't understand the question. sorry.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

4 minutes ago, Black Tourmaline said:
38 minutes ago, Destranix said:

What I mean is somehow more

okay i'm pretty sure i don't understand the question. sorry.

May question actually is about what exactly might make me think it's "more".

Link to post
Share on other sites
what the face

When relating “staying a finite system” and “states of infinite luck”,  this suggests to me someone asking for answers outside conventional thinking.  I wonder if you may be applying either/or, two valued logic which can distort and limit the possibilities in most situations?

 

With my understanding, in two valued or Aristotelian logic things are either (1) true or (2) false.  In four valued logic things are (1) true,  (2) false,  (3) both true and false,  or (4) neither true nor false.  This way of thinking covers the whole range of possibilities, beyond binary  0/1,  +/- ,  etc.   All are possible here.  Opening up to thinking this way can lead to what has been called our mind’s natural state of seeing holistically.


Questions of romantic and love relationships  exist in a reality that ultimately transcends binary reason and thought.  Four valued logic can help overcome the finite confines of either/or thought and into the logic of interdependence and unity.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@what the face I don't think I had much logic in mind. This is some sort outside of any logic so I simply assume anything imagineable is possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
what the face

Outside of logic? 

OK

 

Anyone who might  “simply assume anything imaginable is possible“ 

is my kind of person.

(Really, can I use this quote?)

 

You did ask our (anyone else’s) similar  thoughts and/or feelings , or more ideas about this. 
 

So,

I could here argue that a state of experience-holistically could by definition include not only thoughts and feelings but anything imaginable, but I won’t. 😉

 

Feeling exists in the unified field connecting everything I believe.  When we engage in the world we leave the finite of self and have opportunity to see and touch the infinite of, to quote you again “anything . . . is possible”
 

There,  

here you may be finding your own answers.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, what the face said:

Really, can I use this quote?

I guess you can. You can also name me when quoting if you want.

 

9 minutes ago, what the face said:

When we engage in the world we leave the finite of self and have opportunity to see and touch the infinite

Thinkling about not being infinite myself is unsatisfying since it leads to the conclusion that I cannot constantly increase my knowledge, experiences and imaginations, that I might either one day forget about old or am no longer able to gain new.

Link to post
Share on other sites
what the face

My Buddhist leanings are showing 

no regrets.

 

the Self is finite.

You, as connected to everything

inter-are infinite!

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, what the face said:

the Self is finite.

You, as connected to everything

inter-are infinite!

How do you distinguish "Self" and "You"? Or is this your distinction?

If it is, why do you make that distinction anyway?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Destranix said:

How do you distinguish "Self" and "You"? Or is this your distinction?

If it is, why do you make that distinction anyway?

Appreciate this question wasn’t aimed at me but I may be able to help explain 😊

 

The “self” and “you” are often differentiated in philosophical/spiritual traditions, most notably Buddhism.

 

One way to explain it would be:

 

You - the point or angle of pure perception by which the world is perceived. Think of it as an indescribable point somewhere behind your eyes or in your torso which perceives when you sit completely still and just observe the world. It is a single point of the One Thing That Is that is perceiving the One Thing That Is (i.e. everything that appears separate is in fact connected).

 

Self - our personalities, which are layers upon layers of thoughts and descriptions that we layer (mostly subconsciously) on top of the “you”.

 

I’ll note these are very very approximate descriptions and that there are thousands of texts that attempt to define this!

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Iam9man said:

You - the point or angle of pure perception by which the world is perceived. Think of it as an indescribable point somewhere behind your eyes or in your torso which perceives when you sit completely still and just observe the world. It is a single point of the One Thing That Is that is perceiving the One Thing That Is (i.e. everything that appears separate is in fact connected).

So it's just some sort of objective "Me"? Like something absolutly describing me?

 

And "Self" is any or my subjective perception of it/me?

 

If that's true, I'd not consider my "Self" being more than my "You". Then "Self" would just be a subset of "You".

 

(Although this all assumes that there is somehow a objective perception, even though that might not be "true". Like there could be a set of perceptions or there is a infinite hierachie of perceptions or it's something unimaginable)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really not sure what to say to most of this tbh, but in relation to this bit...

 

On 2/24/2021 at 3:30 AM, Destranix said:

being completely controlable by someone else

In a healthy relationship, you don't feel controlled. If anything, you feel more free to be yourself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, CBC said:

In a healthy relationship, you don't feel controlled. If anything, you feel more free to be yourself.

Yeah, I know my feelings in such a theoretical scenario of a somehow "perfect" relationship would be great. That's the actual point of my question.
The question is: Why don't I fully want it although I know it would be great as soon I'm in it?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Destranix said:

So it's just some sort of objective "Me"? Like something absolutly describing me?

 

And "Self" is any or my subjective perception of it/me?

Ah, so this is where it gets interesting (confusing) 😊

 

Under this model neither the “you” nor the “self” are objective, as neither exist on their own. The “you” is probably closer, as it is a perception point, but as it is not separate from everything else it is not objective.

 

The “self” is described more as a flow or stream, completely impermanent and ever-changing. So yes, I guess it would be a subjective interpretation of “you” by that self, but it limited as it does not take into account its connection with the One.

 

13 minutes ago, Destranix said:

If that's true, I'd not consider my "Self" being more than my "You". Then "Self" would just be a subset of "You".

Under this model, your “you” and “self” would not be separate, as All is One, but I guess the “self” could be seen as an impermanent layer on top of “you” and “you” could be seen as a layer on top of “One” 🤔

 

13 minutes ago, Destranix said:

Although this all assumes that there is somehow a objective perception, even though that might not be "true". Like there could be a set of perceptions or there is a infinite hierachie of perceptions or it's something unimaginable

Exactly, hence the thousands from long texts on this!

 

Confusingly, I think the above model also argues that there is no objective perception, but I’m afraid that’s the limit of my understanding on this 😊

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Iam9man said:

The “you” is probably closer, as it is a perception point, but as it is not separate from everything else it is not objective.

So like the "self" is my current state of perception and the "you" is my biggest possible state of perception?

 

Or is the "you" just comparable to my representation in a system. Like how a (specific? objective?) observer decides to define me? (like there is a network and someone defines me to be a bunch of nodes from it)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Destranix said:

So like the "self" is my current state of perception and the "you" is my biggest possible state of perception?

Yes, sort of 😊

 

52 minutes ago, Destranix said:

Or is the "you" just comparable to my representation in a system. Like how a (specific? objective?) observer decides to define me? (like there is a network and someone defines me to be a bunch of nodes from it)

That description is probably closer to the description of “self”; like the way you and others describe yourself, whilst “you” are much bigger (in spiritual terms) 😊

Link to post
Share on other sites
what the face

In my understanding,

the central Buddhist concept to explain  reality that is the impossible-to describe-in-words idea called interdependent co-arising.

 

With this understanding of a interdependence with everyone and everything, we do not exist as a separate self from the universe.   We exist in relation to seemingly separate entities in a greater field.  This “unified” field has been the study of philosophy for millennia and more recently the study of theoretical physics and scientists like Einstein.

 

The self has been likened to a dream we create when interacting in this unified field.  The self is dreamed up and not realIty, as it is molded by projection and fantasy and acculturation and shared collective psychosis.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...